The public register of the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) links to a 20-page online gaming licence overview marked "Last updated October 12, 2026". Its first page includes Issued dates of 9 and 10 October, following the regulator's 7 October announcement that its old online gaming portal would not return to service. The latest overview gives casino users a dated company check, but it does not list approved website domains.
The register page warns that these overviews do not guarantee a licence's current validity and that no rights can be derived from them. Finding a familiar company or licence number is therefore one part of a check, rather than confirmation of everything a casino website claims.
What the 12 October file shows
The PDF identifies the licensee, licence number, company registration number and company type. It also publishes Issued, Expires and Status license fields. Those fields should be read together: the document's update date is not the issue date of every licence within it.
The first-page October entries sit alongside records with earlier dates. Elsewhere, the file uses different status descriptions, including Indefinite, Assessment in progress and Expired. Inclusion in the overview is not an automatic Active verdict, and a blank status cell should not be filled with an assumed label. The authority's warning about current validity applies to the overview as a whole.
For a casino check, compare the full legal name disclosed in the site's terms with the listed licensee and company registration number. A similar brand name or a number displayed in a footer cannot resolve a different legal entity. Our Curaçao licence guide explains the broader operator and supplier framework.
A company record does not complete the domain check
CGA's separately accessible certification policy distinguishes an entity's License Certificate from a Certificate of Operation for an approved player-facing domain. It describes B2C permission as offering games of chance directly to players, and B2B permission as providing services to other licensed operators. A supplier record does not substitute for the casino operator's permission.
The October overview has no domain column. Even when the legal entity and licence number agree, the exact casino address still needs its own evidence. A reachable policy page also does not demonstrate that every individual certificate or verification link is working.
If a domain check cannot be completed, record the uncertainty. Keep an older certificate with its original observation date instead of presenting the old copy as a fresh confirmation. The research note on why licence status needs a date describes that distinction.
Portal discontinuation did not itself cancel licences
In its 7 October announcement, CGA said the current portal would not return to service. It also said discontinuation did not affect the validity of existing licences, licensees' obligations or its regulatory responsibilities. Licensing, compliance and supervision would continue through alternative arrangements while an interim solution was implemented.
The announcement anticipated disruption to the existing digital seal and a replacement way for operators to demonstrate that a domain is licensed. It described plans, not proof of a completed rollout or a certificate for any particular website. Any replacement check needs to be assessed against fresh instructions from CGA.
For players, an unavailable authority page does not by itself establish revocation. Equally, locating a company in the PDF does not settle a casino's current domain permission, access from another country or a withdrawal entitlement. Compare the identifiers and dated fields, keep unresolved discrepancies visible, and seek clarification through the authority's official channels where current confirmation is needed. Our seven-step licence verification guide provides a fuller checklist.